shagnscoob

i just finished watching black hawk down. that would be the third time ive seen the movie. and im currently on pg. 19 of the book, for the third time.

let me explain how i feel about this event. i could name 2 stories that have affected me this deeply, black hawk down ( the book, i read the book before i saw the movie), and to kill a mockingbird.
and let me tell you, black hawk down is one of the greatest stories ive EVER heard, and probably will be for the rest of my life. not that theres violence. most people my age will deny it, but they just love the violence. im not like that. i like swordfish but not because of halle berry's tits... i swear. but when your my age, it just aint easy to convey that. -.-

i wanted to talk about the ideals it presents. in the end of the movie, eversman ( hartnett) explains that he didnt go to war to be a hero, no1 has to be a hero, but they fight anyways. its not about whos war it is, or why your fighting, or who your fighting. its about who your fighting with. and in essence, war will never go away. it will always be here, and people will always be there to fight it. without war history would not progress. someone here had a good quote in their sig i think, war is like a rock, waiting for man before he came....

i thought about it for hours after i read the book. i wanted to know, is there more than just shooting and killing? what is it that will make a solider go into a city where everyone there is shooting at them? why would someone do this? and i still wonder,and, the very fact that it makes me think this much, tells me, that i wont read a book that good for a long, long time.

duckznutz

'basic training' for soldiers is intended to 'break the independant spirit' and ensure that soldiers obey ALL orders without question.

This blind obedience is a basic requirement for all soldiers in all countries, regardless of which 'side' they are on.

You will not get an answer to all your philosophical 'whys' because the only 'why' the soldier knows is "because my commander ordered it" . . . . . . . . . . a soldier will turn and arrest the soldier next to him if he is commanded to do so. Soldiers effectively become robots . . . and the USA (and other countries) are already working on automated robots to do the fighting for them.

Countries are at peace most of the time, so the Army seems like a safe and easy career. The USA spends 50% of its GNP on defence . . . thats half your tax dollars . . . . which is extraordinary considering USA hasnt actually been at war with anyone since 1945.

__________________
Where your talents and the needs of the world cross . . there lies your vocation.

shagnscoob

no offense, but that seems like a very very biased point of view. your saying that soldiers are robots and dont think for themselves. they may listen to orders, but that doesnt mean they dont tihnk about what they are doing. im gonna say that your a very very strong believer in peace.

i find myself drifting towards the anti-war side as well, but i know that war isnt going away. we have to accept it as a factor in progessing towards a greater good. the world will never be able to accept peace, thus there has to be war. without war, nothing would ever get done.

im not thinking of enlisting, hell no. not unless everything i have is taken, ive already thought this out, if your wondering...

but i want to know your opinions, especially if youve read BHD or seen the movie (not so muhc seen the movie).

Dragonlich

duckznutz, you're wrong about soldiers. Sure, in some countries (former USSR, North-Korea, China, other totalitarian countries) soldiers are seen as cannon fodder, to do as their officers tell them to. In the West, however, this is clearly not the case. Here, they're not turned into robots at all. They're supposed to THINK during combat, not do whatever their moronic leader tells them to.

As far as I know, in the US, blind obedience is not compatible with the requirement that soldiers have to uphold the Geneva convention, for example; even if ordered to go against those rules, they're supposed to say no.

And your claim that the US spends 50% of it's GNP on the military is clearly wrong... I quote:

Now, it does say 50%, but of *what* exactly? Not of the GNP anyway, which is some $6737.0 billion (<a href="http://www.unep.ch/islands/CTT.htm">http://www.unep.ch/islands/CTT.htm</a>). A quick calculation shows that military spending is about 5% of the US GNP, which is high, but not excessive given the size of the US military, and the many things it does around the world. (Oh, and it's not 50% of your tax dollars either - the total 2002 budget spending is some 2,011 billion dollars.)

duckznutz

My misunderstanding . . . . . . . . the 50.5% quoted was the figure I had in mind . . not sure what discretionary spending means.

No offence meant on the 'robot' comment . . . . being immersed in an institution suits many people, who realy like the 'not having to think' part of it all. They dont have to worry what to cook or wear or what do do next . . . its an almost zen-like environment where you can find relaxation without the stress of making a decision.

I am not saying that soldiers have no emotion . . . no-one can question their sense of comradeship . . my point was that the hierarchy of command is essential . . . and whilst the modern miltary personnel are more likely to be programming co-ordinates or working comms or logistics on a laptop . . . (certainly not not 'cannon fodder') . . . . . the fact remains that they do what the politicians say (even the generals). . . . otherwise you have a military government . . so whilst the basic soldiers have thoughts and feelings . . . . they will always do as ordered.

You will no doubt recall Donald Rumsfeld complaining when five of the USA captured soldiers were paraded in front of the Iraqi television cameras. He was correct to do so as Article 13 of the third Geneva convention, concerning the treatment of prisoners, insists that they "must at all times be protected... against insults and public curiosity".

His prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, however, where 641 men are held, breaches no fewer than 15 articles of the third convention. The US government broke the first of these (article 13) as soon as the prisoners arrived, by displaying them, just as the Iraqis have done. Whilst I personnally have no problem with the terrorists in Cuba being treated in this way . . I am not aware of any soldiers not doing as ordered in guarding, feeding, looking after and transporting them.

__________________
Where your talents and the needs of the world cross . . there lies your vocation.

Dragonlich

Totally different situation, and totally different discussion. I'd suggest that G'bay is not against the Geneva convention because the prisoners there aren't POWs. You see it differently, and that is alright with me.

Oh, and there's one slight difference between what the US did and what the Iraqis did: the US *independent media* showed some captured people to illustrate a story about them; the Iraqi *state television* showed interviews with the US soldiers for propaganda purposes. But I can understand how you might disagree with that too...

Anyway, back to the thread, shall we? About troops and their robotic/non-robotic mind, not about G'bay or Iraq.

shagnscoob

well have any of you guys read bhd?

if not you should

erion

I haven't read it, but I have seen the film and I have a friend who was in Mogadishu when it happened. His stories are not pleasant, and I respect him more every day for having gone through it and not gone insane.

LDeer

I've read it. What of it?

shagnscoob

i wanna know what you guys thought, btw, erion, if you/him wouldnt mind, who is your friend?

debaser

Read "My War Gone By, I Miss It So" by Anthony Loyd. It makes BHD look like Dr. Suess.


And to ducknutz:

You have no idea what drives the mind of a professional soldier. In the US Army, IET does not break the independant spirit, it simply builds discipline. The beauty of our organisation is the independant spirit that our soldiers possess. Any private can take over and complete a mission if his superiors are killed, based on his skills and initiative.

As for why we do it? The answer is different for each man. For some it is the adventure, for some a sense of duty. If I was told to go into the heart of Mogadishu to rescue fellow Americans I would not hesitate. I know they would do the same for me, I know someone else would have to do it if I didn't, and I know I would suffer the rest of my life if I let a comrade die when I could have helped.

Some things are simply more important than personal safety.

__________________

shagnscoob

your part of a military organization then?

debaser

Yes, Army to be exact.

__________________

shagnscoob

did you think that BHD reflected the scenario in a non-hollywoodesque manner? did it seem realistic? ( the book not hte movie, the movie is all hollywood shit )

debaser

BHD did a fairly good job. I writing about events as emotionaly charged as combat, people tend to dehumanize the other side (in this case the Somalis). Bowden was careful to avoid that as much as possible. He did, however, play favorites. The Ranger captain (name escapes me) come out looking like an idiot when compared the SF operators they were with. He actually did exactly what he was trained to do, and his descision probably saved the lives of many of his Rangers (who did not have the skill to fight their way out of the city at that stage of the hostilities), despite what the book implies.

Another very good book about Somalia is "Somalia on Five Dollars a Day" by Martin Stanton.

__________________

shagnscoob

i also had a question about the SF, what does it take to be one? lol

they are so l33t

debaser

It takes a strong body, a quick mind, and the ability to put up with alot of punishment (both mental and physical). If you want to know the specifics, go see a recruiter, I only know the specifics for people already in the service...

__________________

shagnscoob

i would consider that type of thing if that was my only option, but fotunately it isnt

anyone else have opinions on the book/war?

papermachesatan

Actually I believe a little under 3% of our GNP was spent on the US military in ~2002. During the cold war, 10% of our GNP was spent on the US military.

dc4prez

reply to debaser .....
same the world over I am part of the Australian defence system Same values and team relationships
DC

duckznutz

reply to debaser . . . . . .
I dont think we are disagreeing. the merits or otherwise of BHD are judged as to whether it is a good book or good film. To that extent it could just as easily be total fiction. I think great care needs to be taken when Hollywood hijack historical events where lives were lost. Hollywood is in the business of 'entertainment' . . .. . or 'artistic interpretation' or 'social comment' at a push.

Lets hope 'Saving Private Jessica' is treated with dignity.

__________________
Where your talents and the needs of the world cross . . there lies your vocation.

Pacifier

But they are supposed to follow the orders without questiong, robot is a bit harsh, but comes close. If soldiers starting to argue if their mission/ the order is correct they are worthless.

Hell no, not during combat. Combat runs on reflexes, on instinct. If the soldier starts thinking during combat he might not shoot at the enemy.
I old times the percentage of soldiers who actually shot at the enemy was pretty low, even in WW2. In the amercian civil war they found rifels that were loaded multiple times withput beeing shot.
With modern training this percentage was increased. They trained the soldiers to shoot automatically without thinking first. see enemy -> shoot, no questions.

this is a part of every soldiers law, even in the rules for the wehrmacht is was illeagal to shot civilians...

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

debaser

Not really.

There are certain things we do in combat that are trained responses. Those are automatic. In the US Army we call them battle drills. Everyone knows what they are supposed to do to react to a certain situation, and they do it without being told.

Some orders are followed without any conscious thought, but these are usually "duck", "Gas, Gas, Gas", and other imediate issues that are as likely to be given by the lowest ranking soldier as the highest.

In most western armies the order given demands the interpretation of the reciever. If I tell my 2nd squad leader to "flank right and assault the objective", it is up to him to choose the best route, to time his assault, to tell me if he thinks that it would be more advantageous to flank left, etc. We fight well because of the input of every team member. Of course the final descision is made by the leader, and that descision is followed.

__________________

abelak

The movie had a profound effect on me too. I remember thinking about it for days on end after I watched it. It's the sort of movie that brings a chill down your spine as you realize that these are real events that happened to real people. Would you carry yourself the same way these guys did if you were in their situation...it really makes you think. But I disagree that war will always be around. Eventually everyone will "evolve" to the same level where they see that working together for common goals is more beneficial than going against the community for your own goals. War at the moment is the weedwhacker eliminating those individuals going in the wrong direction. Once we get rid of the troublemakers then we can all begin to really live in peace.

__________________
Screw it, Let's go bowling.

Pacifier

Thats what i meant, shooting at the enemy is part of the drill i guess.

some numbers:

in Gettysburg 1863 27000 rifles were found after the battle, 90% still loaded, half of them even multiple times.

in ww2 and korea only 20% of the soldiers actually fired their weapons! this changed due the training methods which contains
these battle drills, this shooting in reflex rather that thinking
like "ah there he is, now im going to shoot him"
In Vietnam the percentage reached 95%.

Like i said robot is a bit harsh, but there are certain trained automatic reactions.

You have time to argue in the middle of a battle? or it that during the preparation?

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

debaser

Just as there are when you drive your car...

It is not argueing. As I said, once a descision is made, it is followed.

__________________

Dragonlich

Actually, Pacifier, if I'm not mistaken, the percentage of soldiers *not* firing their guns went down because armies the world over changed the standard target from a simple bulls-eye to the shape of a man. Soldiers are thus supposed to take out a *target*, not a fellow human. The training is supposed to change that perception.

Oh, and even with a large percentage of people not shooting at the enemy, the casualty numbers were still terrible in the old days... tens of thousands of deaths in a single battle were quite common, especially in nationalistic Europe. Today that would simply be unheard of.

Pacifier

yeah, among other things, that is not the only way in which training has changed.

but when you remember that the prussians were able to shot their guns 5 times in a minute a 500 man squad should have been able to kill 2500 man in a minute (ok lets say 2000, some are missing) but that didn't happen cause they were not aiming a the enemy. and the most brutal wars were fought after the introduction of modern artillery and bombers (see WW1 and WW2)

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Dragonlich

You assume that every shot would have hit if aimed properly??? Guns have become more and more accurate and longer-ranged in the past centuries, this is also important, as is the fact that your "target" is moving and is actively trying not to get shot.

Also, define brutal... WW1 was indeed brutal, but so was Waterloo, or many of the battles in medieval days, or roman days. Back in the olde days, any enemy survivors would be killed; in WW1, they'd be captured and send to a first aid station...

Zeld2.0

Thats not entirely true Dragonlich. Enemy survivors would often be sent to slavery. Honestly though, it entirely depended on the situation.

Hannibal for instance at Cannae (i think?) with an army of 20,000 killed something like 70,000 Romans in a battle and captured 20,000 as prisoners - without a doubt most sent to slavery.

It depends on the situation honestly - when Rome defeated Carthage in the Punic Wars it slaughtered everyone and flattened Carthage - yes completely, all that was left was a desert with salt put on it as a sort of symbolic destruction / i forgot the reason.

There were different situations - for example, raider groups say... Vikings would not leave many alive but those who were often ended up as slaves, servants, but often they could also end up part of the group.

The Celtic rebellion against the Romans in England saw Roman survivors executed - but the same happened when Romans captured "barbarians." It was merely who they fought, the sort of respect, and what not.

I'd actually say that there was *more* honor going into the 1800's in battle. Battle was seen as a sort of gentleman's sport - hell the leaders on teh battle were often friends just on opposite sides... So in the end surrender and terms were almost always honored. Even bitter enemies at that.

The American Revolution because the Americans were deemed traitors were often hanged if captured. That would be true even to this day. But the Napoleonic Wars never really had any massacres of prisoners or what not - the sides respected the other side's words.

World War I was brutal - first technological advances, and second because it was truly a total war.

World War I cost twice as many lives as all the wars of the previous two centuries combined - including hte American Civil War, the Napoleonic wars, and hte wars of the french revolution.

World War II in turn cost nearly twice as many as World War I and in a sense symbolically ended with the Atomic Bombs - yes they were an ultimate symbol of how catastrophic that war was.

And I don't know at all how you can say old wars were more brutal - unless you consider wars of the old time as being a mere 60 years ago.

60 years ago this month - in just ten days of fighting nearly 200,000 soviet and 50,000 german casualties resulted at the Battle of Kursk - considered the largest land battle in the entire history of man.

In 1916 at the River Somme - 60,000 British casualties on a SINGLE DAY. Thats more casualties suffered in a day than the entire number of Americans killed in 10+ years in the Vietnam War. That was the worst day in the history of the British Army.

At Verdun over 1 million combined casualties between the Germans and French.

Wars have only gotten more catastrophic - total wars to say the least. The latest few wars have only made us think that wars are easy, a video game, one with few casualties. In a sense its true, the U.S. has not had to face a large nation.

But it is ironic that because wars have become so brutal that people no longer wish to wage them. As Einstein said, "I don't know what weapons will be used to fight with in World War 3, but I know that World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones" (not exact quote but most people know it anyways) - and because of that we humans have not fought one.

(BTW take a chart at the casualties of war over the history of man - the casualties rise exponentially until 1945 then suddenly the casualties per year drop considerably)

Pacifier

not in the old times, gun squads were standing in front of each other and shooting the enemy. it was pretty static

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

debaser

The Prussians you are reffering to were using muskets. This type of weapon is only useful for massed fires. They did not even aim at individuals, just at the mass of soldiers to their front. The individual hit percentage was around 20%.

__________________

Dragonlich

Actually, you'd be wrong. Sure, nobles/leaders would sometimes act honorably because it was expected of them, but most regular troops were pretty much fucked whatever they did. As an example: in the 18th century, troops would go into battle wearing *all* their clothes, because they'd at least be safe from thieves that way. If you were shot (often fatal, no matter where you were hit), you could expect gangs of thieves to steal everything you had after the battle was over - and if you're lucky they'd let you live afterwards. Sometimes an enemy general would order his troops to treat the enemy well because they had fought well, but more often than not the enemy general would have more important things to do...

The notion that war in the 18th century was honorable is just plain wrong, period. It may have been the case for a select number of people, or in specific instances (when the two sides respected each other), but in most cases, bitter hatred and nationalism made sure that there was little honor to be seen anywhere.

Zeld2.0

True and false. They didn't go around butchering enemies - i will say this though, part of the reason is that during the 1800's the # of wars after the Napoleonic Wars decreased considerably - the Congress of Vienna helped keep peace and even the Crimean War and Franco-Prussian War were fairly fast affairs.

Sure, there were times when people had stuff stolen, but think about it - at that time, many many armies were conscripted and often wore no shoes at times and were often poorly trained and equipped. Think of the American Civil War - everyone says the Confederates were poorly equipped but even the Union had soldiers going around barefooted - looting the dead was almost always common.

Yes even in the Civil War the word of the others would be kept - I remember the story of the battle where the two sides fought over a day and many wounded and dying men were left in no man's land between the union and confederate lines - the two sides had a one day truce and the next day they picked up the wounded and hell they practically had a picnic as the two sides sat there and talked - the next day they went back to killing each other.

I'd say as much that the main wars fought in Europe were much more honorable than the wars fought in the colonies where the "barbaric" tribes were often slaughtered and vice versa - and colonial rivalries often didn't follow the code.

Bitter hatred and nationalism you stated 18th century - i can see the 1700s since that would be the 18th century but Im guessing you meant hte 1800's (19th century)? which is what I was addressing anyways.

And yes during the "old times" - actually til the Civil War really - the musket / smoothbore was the usual weapon.

it was simple but inaccurate as hell - you could miss at 100 yards even if you bothered aiming - miss a whole goddamn mass of people - hence with large conscriptd armies, you had cheap soldiers that could be trained easily to fight - it seems stupid today but it was the sytle of fighting.

the early to mid 1800s saw the rifling of barrels and by the Civil War both sides had rifled weaposn though they were still pretty much reloaded the same way - but the technology of kiling had increased incredibly from the time of hte Civil War from just a decade ago in the Crimean War.

Suddenly inventors had invented self-contained cartridges which were employed in the first repeating rifles (the winchester and other rifles made their debut this time) - not to mention the gatling gun.

The reason they weren't employed en masse by teh Union as that htey ahd a stubborn as hell secretary of war and they were already manufacturing something like hudnreds of types of rounds already and they didn't see the need.

Thus the fighting was often the same line style battle - but the rate of kiling went up greatly. Hence we had some particuararly bloody battles all throughout the war - but the LARGEST amount of casualties still came as in millenia past from DISEASE. Infected wounds were almost sure death, and the medical procedure wasn't very good.

The actual # of Civil War COMBAT deaths is very little comapred to the # of deaths resulting from infection and disease.

By World War I however, war took another technologcial leap. Towards the end of the Civil War, the Confederates increasingly used trench lines to defend their position as they fought the last year of the war on the defensive - static lines around cities such as Richmond and so on. The European Nations took note of this - though there were almost nowars between after the Franco-prussian war (around 1870-1871 iirc) until WWI (1914).

During this time, the technology increased incredibly - first were explosvie shells fired by artillery - much mroe destructive than ever and used en masse.

Second was the basic rifle was changed - suddenly it didn't take 20 seconds to load an old musket - now a rifleman could fire 20 shots a second (bolt action rifles).

Third - airplanes, though they weren't used in combat until 1912 when italians dropped the first greandes from them - and weren't of age until actual WW1.

Fourth - machine guns, such as the Maxim gun. Ironically entering hte war, the empires of Europe often employed the same guns and airplanes - so Maxim machine guns were acutally used by both sides.

Not to mention during this time nations such as Germany and Britain had built up huge industries that could be geared for war - which lead to these weapons being used in mass. The railroads and what not were also used extensively to move troops for offensives and to secure sectors and waht not. Equipment could be transffered quickly.

When World War I came, the nations at first saw the fight as one that would be fought as their fathers and their fathers had fought - by the time they clashed it became clear it couldnt work.

When a shell could obliterate an entire line - when a machinegun could mow people down - the two sides on the Western Front dug in.

The war became the stalemate we know of as the Western Front - a meat grinder would be a word to describe it. Troops would constantly be brought in - to replenish the lines that were killed.

Through the 4 years of war, the line enver shifted more than i bleieve 20 miles?

Think about it - 4 years of war and within those 20 miles something like 20 million people ended up dying.

To THIS DAY (if you visit france) you can see the results of the war - craters are still there though it may be hard to notice - trench lines still run through fields, bombed out buildings and bunkers.

Think about every day non-stop shelling, occasionally patrols and probes into enemy lines which could cost many men - full offensives where you may seey our entire platoon mowed down by enemy defenses as you futilely charged, only to barely survive crawling back. The woudned left out to die - horses with guts all over the ground - bodies tangled in the barbed wire for shooting practice - and then of course gas was used for the first time in war, adding a whole new level.

And then by WW2 technology advanced yet again - better planes made heavier and more deadly bombings. The majority of deaths in WW2 were CIVILIANS - entire cities flattened by bombing - some of htese cities that had stood for thousands of years.

Think about it - Germany having maybe 60-80 million people at that time losing around 7 million men killed - and millions of wounded and maimed for the rest of their lives.

Russia - 150 million going into the war or something, estiamtes range from 22 to 30 million dead by the end of the war.

Britain lost nearly a million - Japan well over a million - China over 2 million. Hell I ahd a grandfather who fought there and out of his class of 20,000 military academy only 5,000 survived the war.

The U.S. had an armed forces of over 10 million and yet over 1 million were casualties of which around 1/3 were deaths.

Why suddenly did WW1 and 2 have many more casualties than deaths? Because medicine ahd caught up as well and treatment was much better and survival rate was incredibly high.

And yet by the end of WW2 people knew it - war had been so costly and bloody that yes now entire nations could cease to exist. Thus in a sense we are blessed with the fact that no one wants a major total war anymore - because all it may lead to is millions of deaths. A nuclear war? Almost guaranteed billions.

Thats why if you plot deaths per year due to war, you will see the number rise from the first recorded wars pretty consitently to 1914 then rise considerably then... lower a bit after the war.. then rise consiederably 1939 to 1945 - then after that the number plumets greatly.

Its something I feel that all humans shouldd learn - don't face the same wars because the horrors may only get worse.

Dragonlich

Zeld2.0, nice summary, even if it's not quite correct at times... (hey, I need to find at least *something* wrong! )

One could divide the history of war into a number of rather different time periods, like you did:

1) pre-Greek/roman, with small bands of men hitting each other over the head with blunt objects, killing a few, but not too many.
2) Greek/roman, with large numbers of men with large numbers of pointy sticks, killing large numbers of enemies, and often murdering or enslaving survivors.
3) early medieval, with knights in leather or chain mail armor, butchering men on foot. Not very efficient, but deadly at times. Survivors might be imprisoned if they were nobles (ransom), while commoners might be executed by their enemies, or by bands of thieves. If you happened to be part of a crusade or jihad, you'd be fucked.
4) late medieval, with halbardiers and pikemen kicking the knights' arses, and crossbows/longbows killing them even more. Nobles would be captured, while commoners would again be fucked, but less so than previously.
5) renaissance, with early muskets and pikes. Cavalry could still play a big part, but would often be thwarted by the pikes. Cannons also appeared, *with* exploding shells, which could devastate the infantry squares; and without squares, the cavalry would kill them... Survivors might expect some decency, but not always, depending on the enemy involved.
6) late renaissance, with more advanced muskets and cannons. During these days, battle turned into sieges, with everyone fighting for control of key fortresses (to control the land). If a fortress was finally captured, the people inside might be exterminated if the attackers were pissed. Sometimes they were spared, though.
7) revolutionary wars, with massed conscript armies and such. Napoleon and his French armies are a good example, as is the American war of independence. People fought for a cause, and morale was much higher than before. Lines of troops would advance and be exterminated by lines of enemy riflemen. This period also saw the introduction of snipers to pick off enemy officers (US vs Britain). Survivors might be treated well, but not always. It depended on the commanders, basically.
8) early modern, with bolt-action rifles and high-explosive siege shells (war of 1870 between France/Germany is a prime example). Brick and mud fortresses were reduced to rubble easily, and the wars would be faster than before, with more movement (trains). There are some prime examples of good behavior against defeated foes, but also some nasty reports of executions.
9) WW1, with trenches and concrete fortresses, machine guns, huge amounts of artillery and poison gas. Nasty. Only the introduction of tanks (as well as planes and shock troops) managed to break the deadlock. Prisoners would be send to large prison complexes, where they might be well-treated if lucky. Russians in Germany would often starve to death because Germany couldn't even feed their own population thanks to the British blockade...
10) WW2, with tanks, bombers and fast movement. Depending on the theater of operation, combat could be brutal and deadly, with survivors being pretty much fucked (Russia), or relatively lucky (France, Italy, especially Africa).
11) post-WW2, with more tanks, bombers and even faster movement. Oh, and atom bombs and such... The Geneva convention is upheld by some, not by others, so depending on the situation, you're treated well or shot.

There, that's my version.

Zeld2.0

BTW on explodign shells I meant the type of artillery we see today - the older versions were honestly still either solid shot or the canister type shot a'la the American Civil War. As in not really exploding in terms of creating huge craters because honestly they didn't - more like a long ranged shotgun.

Also I'll disagree on there being a post-WW2 style war - the style of war post-WW2 is basically the style seen in World War 2.

-The large armored war - the one most people know in WW2. This style of war is the type seen in movies, documentaries and in the gulf war. Mass movements of armor and troops, the style of wars that would probably be used in large nation vs. large nation fights.
-The air war - WW2 saw the use of mass (and i mean mass, i still am awed just trying to imagine fleets of 1000+ bombers heading to Germany) air war - the art of air combat was refined, the strategic bomber was born, and the type of air war today is pretty much the same just with differnet weapons - striking strategic targets as well as tactical targets often standoff before the ground war.
-Guerilla wars - seen mainly in SouthEast Asia such as in burma, and all throughout the pacfici theatre. The Vietnam style of fighting (and Russian war in Afghanistan) was pretty much seen in WW2 already.
-Special operations war - WW2 was most well known for its legendary raids - the stuff of legends and damn well deserved. The commandos are legends - jesus the special forces today still honor those men - the modern SAS and other forces all pretty much come from this. The use of the Resistance and the war in teh shadows was basically the stuff in WW2 that really helped win wars.

There were so many 'different type of wars' in WW2 that today's wars are really just evolutions. THe only type of wars I can say after WW2 taht came about was the Nuclear War - and evne that was already seen in WW2.

Don't say urban warfare because WW2 was the first where street to street fighting acutally occured on large scales (as in cities w/ millions of citizens were entire battlegrounds).

WW2 was so devastating that people realized that large scale wars weren't going to do any good other than basically destroy the entire world. It wasn't just nuclear wars - had the Warsaw Pact and NATO faced off in Europe, Europe would have basically become another big fat battleground. Massive tank divisions vs. tank divisions, a war in the air between sides that had comparable equipment, technology, and a war in teh seas with teh submarine fleets. Not to mention special forces and what not. it would've been like WW2 but with weapons hella more destructive.

The reason today there are relatively few wars between major nations is that they learned from WW2 and realize its folly.

China and the U.S. may be at odds over differnet issues but both countries realized (hopefully lol) that a large war between two powers would only leave countries in deep shit.

The U.S. also realizes now that if it faced a real power, its cities would no longer be safe. WW2 had the benefit to the U.S. of having two large oceans and so it went through the war with almost no casualties at home (the exact number is controversial but the # killed ranges from 1 to 20 lol)

Anyways I'd say the country should be glad its latest wars are relatively puny - I'm not saying they're not as harrowing, war is always harrowing.

But my father always told me (he is Vietnam vet) to realize that the last few wars have really tricked the populace into thinking wars w/ these great 'smart' weapons are saving lives and blah blah blah. He always metnions the "great illusion that no one will get killed" and so on - "it's sad today that many forget how many people died in wars of the past on both sides and think war is a video game."

And he's right - people think it is a reality show now. Until of course they are thrust into a war where 30 people die a day at the least. Then people really shutup and reality hits - sometimes too late.

Dragonlich

Not quite true. During the age of Vaubain fortresses (those strange designs with triangular heaps of earth), the Dutch invented siege mortars that would fire an explosive shell over the walls, killing people there. These definitely exploded. During these days, armies also (eventually) developed exploding shells to blow up fortress walls in one go. These guns were used during the Franco-German war of 1870, to demolish some older forts. This prompted many nations to build concrete forts instead of the old brick ones. The German burrowing shell of WW1 era was able to destroy those things with ease.

Also, during the golden age of wooden sailing ships, the French developed exploding shells for their ship cannons, which did in fact explode on target, with devastating results.

But overall, it doesn't really matter when these things were invented - point is that they were used en masse during WW1, with an explosive power never seen before, to an extend never seen before, and with results never imagined before...

And yes, war sucks, especially between equally strong countries.